Loading...
CC - 07-09-91APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY OF ROSEMEAD ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL DATE ~2 7- JULY 9, 1991 6{•~ ~yitr The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Imperial at 8:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Taylor. The Invocation was delivered by City Treasurer Foutz. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Bruesch, McDonald, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Clark, and Mayor Imperial Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 11, 1991 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 11, 1991, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: Taylor The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Plaques were presented to Co-Chairs Holly Knapp and Pat Taylor for their efforts in organizing the "WELCOME HOME TROOPS" parade on July 4, 1991. Ms. Knapp thanked all the members of staff who had helped with those preparations. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, asked about a letter he had received regarding a Fire District Assessment. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of public hearings was presented by the City Attorney. A. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CITY-INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH A FLOOR AREA TO LOT AREA RATIO TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES (PC RES_ 91-21) The Mayor opened the public hearing and there being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Bruesch stated the opinion that a 1500 square-foot home was not large enough for a 6,000 square-foot lot; requested that an addition be made that for every bedroom over the fifth one, an extra garage space would be required and suggested that once homes reach a certain square-footage they become subject to the design review process. Councilman Taylor suggested that two-story homes being cramped onto small lots was the primary concern. Mayor Pro Tem Clark asked that the portion of the ordinance using a 75% of the second floor as a criteria be deleted, preferring the use of an overall floor area ratio (FAR); asked about the garage being CC 7-9-91 Page #1 • included in the FAR; and was in favor of the building height being reduced from thirty-five to thirty feet. Mrs. Clark asked that this be returned to the Planning Department for modification and examples of what type of homes could be built in each percentage cited to maximize assurance that the proper type of home would be built on each lot and to prevent oversized housing. Councilman McDonald preferred keeping the restrictions as simple as possible and using a square-footage requirement rather than a room-designation plan. Mr. McDonald concurred that the item should be returned to, the Planning Department. There being no objection, this item was ordered returned to the Planning Department for modification and examples of what type and size of home could be built on each proposed lot size. The Mayor reopened the public hearing and continued it to August 27, 1991, at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. B. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING A REQUEST FROM EVERLAND, INC. FOR EXTENSIONS OF PARCEL MAP NO. 20372 AND PARCEL MAP NO. 20373 FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3114 AND 3120 BURTON AVENUE The Mayor opened the public hearing. Tom Lee, applicant and principal owner, 930 Hampton Rd., Arcadia, offered to answer any questions the Council might have. Mayor Pro Tem Clark stated that there appeared to be a problem with projects receiving approval and the applicants' failure to follow through with conditions of approval and timely construction. Councilman Taylor was concerned that the process appeared to be taking a long time and asked the reason for the holdup on the approval process. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that a memo would be provided giving the history of the site. Councilman Bruesch.asked that staff meet with Mr. Lee and determine that Mr. Lee is aware of exactly what needs to be done to allow this project to proceed. Councilman Taylor asked for copies of all the corrections and at what point the corrections were noted. Mr. Taylor asked that this item be continued to the next regular meeting to allow staff to provide all relevant information and a commitment from Mr. Lee for his timetable on construction. Speaking against the project were: Nadia Bolkunoff, 3119 Burton Avenue, asked that children be prevented from playing on the vacant lot and throwing dirt and rocks. Elsa Carlton, 3052 Burton Avenue, reported that the lot is being used for dumping; that weeds are growing in the sidewalk; and that heavy equipment is being parked there. Beatrice Sellers, 3115 Burton Avenue, stated that trash is being dumped on the lot and asked that Mr. Lee be directed to keep the lot clean and begin construction as soon as possible. Mayor Imperial asked that Mr. Lee repair the fence; post the property NO TRESPASSING; grade and clean the property; and remove the construction equipment. Councilman McDonald asked that staff be directed to meet with Mr. Lee as soon as possible and explicitly lay out what is needed to be done. CC 7-9-91 Page #2 • 9 There being no objection, the public hearing remained open and this item was continued to July 23, 1991, at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 91-30 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $629,039.41 NUMBERED 37476-37507 AND 33751 THROUGH 33846 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Resolution No. 91-30 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. RESOLUTION NO. 91-31 - CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1991, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS QUESTIONS REGARDING SENIOR HOUSING AND A GRAFFITI PREVENTION TAX VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: IMPERIAL: Okay. We have a request to speak on Item III-B. FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: III-B Mr. Mayor, is Resolution No. 91-31, Calling and giving notice of the holding of a Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 1991, for the submission to the voters questions regarding senior housing and a graffiti prevention tax. Staff has provided you with a report in your agenda and I know that there some questions raised by at least two members of the Council as it relates to language on the ballot measure. And this evening the City Attorney gave out an alternative to the original staff report and I believe we passed that information out to each of you in the audience this evening. The two issues to deal with are senior housing and a graffiti prevention tax. The first issue is whether or not the City of Rosemead should construct senior housing for low income and handicapped persons. The second question to be decided is a resolution of the City Council to have voters consider the question of establishing a graffiti prevention tax, basically saying that anyone who purchases aerosol cans and markers of a particular nature that will be defined in an ordinance, should pay a tax or user's fee on that in order to assist in the removal of graffiti. That's it. I do believe you have a request to speak. IMPERIAL: Yes. I have a request from Mr. Juan Nunez to speak on this. AUDIENCE: Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar. On this graffiti tax I don't approve of it because this guys, kids or men that do graffiti I don't think that they even buy those cans. They go out and steal them and I think I may sound like the bad guy but I think those guys should happen like what happened, to a guy today I think I heard that on the news over on the San Diego freeway I believe it was or Pacific Coast highway or I-5 rather there was a guy who was killed by a truck. They were tagging some place in the freeway and when they ran away a truck happened to hit them. Some of the guys got away and another got away in a van or something but I don't think that people that you're going to be taxing probably school people that use some of this felt pens in CC 7-9-91 Page #3 0 0 NUNEZ CONTINUES: their work. You're going to be using homeowners that use cans to spray paint or something like this. I think that when some of these guys get caught they should get punished by cleaning up the graffiti, making them work so they can buy the paint to clean the graffiti. But not tax the ordinary people that is going to buy that paint. And another thing that I want to speak on this ordinance for the housing units and I don't know well when I asked on Section 3 where it says the Constitution of the State of California and the city's related agencies are empowered to take any and all action necessary and convenient to the development of projects set forth in Section 2 without regard to the restrictions and limitations in Article XXXIV. I don't know what that Article XXXIV encompasses but if this means that being able to take more property because those developments don't have enough property when they are being developed I don't agree with that, either. IMPERIAL: Let me answer both your questions, Juan. The first one is we're not taxing anybody for buying spray cans. We're asking the people if that's what they want to do. Okay? So, we are not taxing anybody at this point. Secondly, we already have the property that we're going to build on if the people see fit to do this. Okay? We're not asking to go out and confiscate so to speak property. We're saying that we've got the property. We would like to build on it. What do you think? That's what it's all about. We want to be sure that explanation goes clear. Okay? NUNEZ: But that empowerment, what does that empower as I say if the Agency believes that after they build the project they would want to extend and the only way to extend is to take other property... IMPERIAL: This would not give the Agency the authority to do that, Juan, is what I'm trying to say. We would have to go back out to the people again. We wouldn't have that authority. NUNEZ: Why is it in this ordinance? IMPERIAL: Why does it say in that ordinance? NUNEZ: Yes, why is it...? IMPERIAL: That's not what I, I, I think the ordinance says. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. Could we have the City Attorney explain what Article XXXIV is? ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: Article XXXIV of the Constitution of the State of California requires the election and this in the case of low rent housing there must be an election of the people. As we've discussed in previous meetings which you have attended, if the City Council wanted a project that was up to 49% restricted to low income, seniors, and handicapped, they could do that. When they cross 50% and impose those restrictions in a public project that requires a vote of the people. This revision that we presented this evening makes it very site-specific as to the two sites that are presently owned by the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency. We have set not to exceed 150 units on one site and not to exceed 50 units on another site. Section 3 merely states that this ordinance is intended to satisfy the requirements of Article XXXIV and that in order to build on those sites, the City and Agency are empowered to do whatever they need to do. But not expand them. NUNEZ: Not expand. Well, that's what I wanted to know because it says projects set forth in Section 2 without regard to the restrictions and limitations of Article XXXIV. KRESS: Right. NUNEZ: There must be some restr like I said I don't know what it that may want to be done there's have no more land or anybody has be to take property that's close I'm asking. ictions. But I just wanted to know, contains and if there's and expansion no way of expanding because you don't no more way of expanding so it would by in order to expand and that's what CC 7-9-91 Page #4 0 r'1 U IMPERIAL: Yeah. Yeah. And that's not going to happen. NUNEZ: Okay. Thank you. McDONALD: Mr. Mayor. I have a problem with the graffiti tax. I look on it about the same thing as the lottery solving the school problems. It didn't. Okay? And when we have people coming up to the ballot box and say oh my God they're going to take care of all the graffiti with this tax here and.I don't use spray cans, they're going to vote for it and then they're going to find out that that tax isn't taking care of the graffiti problem because I don't know if we've got half a dozen places in Rosemead here that sell ...we don't even have a hardware store in town that sells that so it's not...we've got to be careful not to push that as the solution to solving the graffiti problem because that's not going to bring in $100,000 a year to paint the walls and sandblast the walls. But if somebody looks at that and reads that it almost seems like you're solving the problem with the tax. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. I have in my notes the very same thing. My point is though I don't want everybody to think that this is the salvation but you know it's at least.a visible step toward doing something where the people in Rosemead will have a chance to decide well is this the way we want to go. I want to make it absolutely clear to the people of Rosemead that this is not going to be our salvation. There's a lot of other things that we have to do in terms of enforcement, in terms of changing attitudes of courts and so forth on this problem. We're looking at getting very close to $300,000 this year in our cost of wiping out this menace and you know I hate to say it but this is one step in the right direction. It certainly isn't the whole journey but it is one step. It gets us started. IMPERIAL: Any further comment? TAYLOR: Mr. Nunez has a... NUNEZ: I would like to mention that sometimes... IMPERIAL: Just a minute. Yes, Mr. Taylor? TAYLOR: No. I'll wait 'til Mr. Nunez is finished. NUNEZ: I would like to mention on some of the construction projects I've noticed that the contractors, whoever does the painting on the job, and I'm not talking about the street because I haven't seen them on the street on Garvey, but I've seen them on one construction place where they'll finish with some of those cans and they throw them out. And some of those cans still contain a little bit of paint. Not as much to finish their job that they're doing but they'll throw them and some of those kids will pick them up and probably go out and write with them. Maybe those people should be able to contain those cans and save them and take them someplace else and get rid of 'em. BRUESCH: That's hazardous waste if there's still paint left in them. They cannot dispose of them. IMPERIAL: Yeah. They'll be fined for that. NUNEZ: Well, but how many people see them? You know, like I say I've seen those cans thrown on the job site. And I don't have the authority to go in there and tell 'em pick it up and dispose of it. IMPERIAL: Doesn't EVO have a program for that and the WE-TIP to where you can report that to them? McDONALD: I don't that's a major pollution. One thing I'd like to add on those cans. I noticed in the Home Club the other day they had a screened area and it was all locked up and if you wanted to buy it it was like buying a watch or something. It's behind that protections so if the kids want to buy it and spray I guess they have to... Somebody said thievery was a major problem. CC 7-9-91 Page #5 • 9 TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I intend to oppose both of the issues at the present time. As Mr. McDonald stated I agree with him 100%. This isn't really going to solve the graffiti problem. I don't think it's even going to help because E1 Monte, San Gabriel, Monterey Park, South E1 Monte, Temple City, we're going to just put a minimal tax and the thing is how do we actually find out...we're extremely limited on the stores that are selling them. It's going to be all the office supply people that will actually be paying for it and the felt markers. So, I agree with the concept of trying to find a solution. But what I find strange is with the $500 reward that we've had the past couple of years, only one person has applied for it. The suggestion now is that we raise that to $1500. We could that on our own, as far as changing our ordinance and see what happens with a year on that particular item. But I think this putting a tax on it is going to penalize the wrong people and it certainly isn't going to solve the graffiti problem. It's disgusting to all of us but I think it's very inappropriate because it's so isolated. The other item on the housing program. We had talked about staff coming up with a detailed plan, what it is actually include as far as the regulations, requirements. We've also had some discussion which I've been trying to get an answer on, improving the existing housing stock in Rosemead and making that decent and affordable housing. This is strictly one single proposal. The other question that comes up is what happened to the community center that was going on this site, also? There's no reference made to that. A question to Mrs. Warner. Janice, what did it cost us for our last City election? ...$30,000 for our regular election and my understanding was that this would be on our regular election for the City and the way it's proposed now this was something $34,000 or $43,000 for both of them? ...I don't know why they could be charging that much money... It's outrageous for the County to go in and raid us again, so to speak and we can put on a whole election for...well, again whatever they do, it's going to be robbery again. That's something where they're bigger than we are. We use their services and this is just a question of well they're going to take it from the cities. The County services, nobody's disputing the need for the County but when they just reach out and say well we'll go to Rosemead and the other cities, there's not much that we can do about. I'm opposed to it from that standpoint, too. There's a difference of four months. This would be a free question if it's on our own election. I can't see spending that kind of money and we still don't have all the details, all the explanations that we've been trying to get for four years. If this goes through just the way it states, it's so simple that it's like well people and we do have a need for this as far as some type of housing but I think it really needs to be defined as I've stated, once we build these they're going to be long-term, permanent housing. I can't see any other way. We're not going to be evicting tenants and if the City owns it, I've asked how are we going to take the liability of it. If this is a City project who's going to provide the meals, who's going to operate it? We have a big liability once this starts and it's long term. And those questions have not been answered, yet. So, I cannot vote for it. It was going to go on our regular ballot, the last I had heard. McDONALD: Mr. Mayor. Gary, in this situation all we're doing is putting this on the ballot for the people to vote yea or nay on allowing us to come up with a concept that we're still going to have to vote on, this body, how specific ...all those specific things that you pointed out. What I would like to do at this point is to split these and vote on them separately as being a part of this resolution here. Could we do that? IMPERIAL: I have no problem with that if the Council agrees. Does the Council agree? Okay, we'll take the first item on this, then. McDONALD: I would move that we place the housing on the election in November. BRUESCH: In which form, Dennis? Which form are you talking about? The one that is presented in 91-31 or the one that was presented as a City ordinance. CC 7-9-91 Page #6 0 i McDONALD: I really don't have any druthers on that. If somebody wants to be more specific that's fine. BRUESCH: I would second putting it on the ballot but I want to choose which one as... McDONALD: Well, go ahead and choose which one and I ll see if I accept it. BRUESCH: Okay. I'll second that. TRIPEPI: Which one, Bob? BRUESCH: Oh, well, you want to discuss it now? McDONALD: Just make your conditional second and I'll see if I... TRIPEPI: You want the ordinance from the Attorney? The old or the new? BRUESCH: I just... what I'd like ...my main thing is the word acquire. I don't like the word acquire because we don't need to acquire anything. IMPERIAL: So, we're talking the new one then, Bob, am I correct?' BRUESCH: Yeah. IMPERIAL: Are you trying to say that your second of that motion is for the new one? BRUESCH: Yeah. McDONALD: I'll accept that. IMPERIAL: Mr. McDonald, would... McDONALD: I'll accept that. TRIPEPI: He accepts. IMPERIAL: Okay. He accepts. So, we have a motion and a second. Okay. Any questions? Would you vote please. Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like the record to show that I'm not opposed to a housing program but I do not feel that we've been provided the appropriate information for this item that we have discussed for the last four years. It is too simplified here because most of the people I believe will vote for it because it's the American thing to do and it's the good thing to do but it doesn't get into the nitty-gritty... I made a comment about how the County's coming back trying to get tax monies for their shortfall. The State is doing the same thing. The Federal government's doing the same thing. We can get a program started but we don't even know how it's going to be financed yet as far as.what are the rents going to be. It was suggested that they start out the last conversation that we had they could be around $130 a month. And nobody can rent for $130 a month now without some type of total subsidy. That was one of the comments. And then it was up to $600 a month. Well, we get down to long-term, who's going to evict these senior citizens out of a public housing project? We're not going to do it and I don't think it's our burden to go down to the handicapped and say well I'm sorry. You can't make the rent so we're going to raise our taxes because we now have to do this. CC 7-9-91 Page #7 • 9 McDONALD: I think the point Gary has is well taken in the respect that when we make the decision on what type of complex it is all the specifics will be laid out but I don't think we ought to spend all the money to come up with a definitive program of exactly how we're going to do it and do all the research and have the staff work on it unless the public okays that we can have it so we're kind of getting the cart before the horse in Gary's respect here and once we get the approval if we do get the approval then we'll have to come back and put a program together that's still all acceptable to all five of us here. What I would like to do is make a motion not to go through with the graffiti tax or not to have it put on... CLARK: I just want to say that all we're doing here is presenting to the voters the option of having a project that we can have all the units be low income. My understanding is the reason we have to have an election on it is because according to Article XXXIV if you don't have an election you can only have half or you... 49% is low income. If we want to have them all low income, we have to have an election of the people. So, this is merely a mandate of the people.saying let's go for it. Let's have 'em all low income. And the other thing I think we need to point out is that in the redevelopment agency, like it or not, whether we like redevelopment agencies or not, we have one. It's in place and the law requires that 20% of the money that comes in from the tax increment has to be set aside for housing, for low income housing. So, we are required by law to provide low income housing with that money and the State is looking into the...there was an article in the Tribune last week concerning the State is looking at agencies. Ours is in a set-aside fund so we're not violating anything but there are cities in the State that are not spending their money on low income housing and the Governor is looking into taking that money and he's going to spend it for them and I don't want that to happen here. I want to be able to where we have control of what's going on with what we are required by law to do. And the other thing that I do want to point out is that this could have been on the ballot when I was running for election and it was opposed by Mr. Taylor at that time so that's something that people need to bear in mind that we could have had it in there consolidated with the election where we ran in March. And so I think this is something that we need to get moving on so that we can provide the housing for the people that are under the possibility of losing their... some of the trailer parks are in dire need because they are having to move out and I think this is a need that we're going to be fulfilling and I think it's a good thing to let the voters decide. Thank you. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'll give you a chance if you'll give me one after this. TAYLOR: All right. Again, I would like the City Attorney to make a general interpretation. It is true that 20% of the money is set-aside for housing development and improvement. And again I'd the record set clear that my understanding is that money does not have to be spent on new building projects. That you can improve-your existing housing stock for low-income and handicapped. Is that correct or not? KRESS: And this is when I get to say that's the 15-page memorandum that I sent you that goes through all of the things that the money can be spent on. TAYLOR: Yes or no. TRIPEPI: Yes. Yes, it's true. TAYLOR: It can be spent... KRESS: It doesn't have to be all one program or all another program. TAYLOR: This is all one program that we're voting on here. KRESS: No, it's not. CC 7-9-91 Page #8 • • TAYLOR: It's 150 units on one and 50 on the other. KRESS: It authorizes a component of an overall program. TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Kress. I beg to differ with... I've learned something in 18 years on this Council. It's the foot in the door and look the people voted on it. It's a trap as far as I'm concerned because we'll come back to the people and all we say look they voted on it. Dollars don't matter. We don't have to have a plan. IMPERIAL: I need to answer to that. And I can...Mr. Taylor, I have the utmost in respect for you and I respect your 18 years in this Council but don't forget that I've sat here for 15 years and I don't feel I've done anything in this community to make people ashamed of me. If anything I would hope they'd be proud of me. They must be because they keep voting me back into office. I'm saying this. That first of all you're talking about available stock so we can help somebody fix up their house so they can put 17 people in a two-bedroom house. Wait a minute. My turn. Okay? So they can put 17 people in a two-bedroom because that's what's happening today and if you don't believe it you should have been at my house last night about 11:30 when I asked these guys to please let me go to sleep. Okay? That's next door. Secondly, I think that in the past, and I can say up 'til now, I've had sufficient amount of information for me to act on this and I want this verbatim... TAYLOR: I agree. The whole conversation. IMPERIAL: Okay. I want it verbatim. I've had sufficient amount of information to be able to act on this. Now, I've had people and we've had people come up before this Council that live in trailer courts. We're talking about people that are not sixty years but much older in many cases. We're talking about people that said they don't have enough when they pay their rent to have three full meals a day and what can this Council do about it? We're talking about 16 trailer parks in this City that someday soon might not be trailer parks because somebody has purchased these and they say out you go and they're living in trailers that will not be acceptable in any other trailer park and if they were acceptable they'd be moving them completely out of the area because there is no place to put these trailers. I think it's my opinion we have a matter of urgency not for the homeless because that's another situation but for the people that might be homeless in this community that we better start thinking about because they're our problem. They're nobody elses. Okay? Now, as far as an election is concerned, I mean an ultimatum from the people on whether they want this or not, I think they've got the right to speak their piece and if it only costs $30,000 or whatever it's going to cost for those people to come out and say I want this or I don't then I think they've got a right to do that. That's their money because if it wasn't for those people there'd be no reason for this Council and this City Hall and they've got a right to do this. Thank you. TAYLOR: Why wouldn't we put it four months later on our City ballot? Why wouldn't you want to do that? IMPERIAL: Because Mr. Taylor I think this is a matter of urgency and we could have it in April but we didn't have it and let me tell you I'm frustrated with the fact that why can't we do this and why can't we do that? Why in the hell don't we do it and get it over with? TAYLOR: Because nobody's figured out who's going to pay for it. IMPERIAL: Mr. Taylor, we...we've fig... we've, uh...we can get to that. Okay? TAYLOR: How is it that we're... IMPERIAL: We can get to that later. Right now, you know, let's not deliver the plot plan before we buy the property. Okay? CC 7-9-91 Page #9 TAYLOR: How is it that we can take 16 trailer parks in the community and vote in special legislation for them when we have 12,000 homes in the community and let's not kid ourselves this has always been directed to the mobile home parks. Every single discussion that we've had in four years it comes back that the City now has it appears an obligation that we will take a select group of residents in our community and provide long-term permanent housing for them whereas anybody else that's if the owner sells the property, they just have to find other housing. IMPERIAL: No. Now that is not a fact now. We're referring to trailer parks because that's where our biggest need is but this doesn't say we're going to turn Mabel Jones away because she happens to live in an apartment, she can't pay her rent. Come on, Gary, let's not knit-pick on this. You know how to spell knit-pick? TAYLOR: Every time we've had the discussion it comes right back to the crux of the matter, mobile homes, trailer parks. IMPERIAL: The crux of the matter is we've got a need in this City, Gary, let's realize it and let's get on with this. TAYLOR: I'm not disputing a need. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. IMPERIAL: Mr. Bruesch. Nobody asked you to interrupt between my friend and I. BRUESCH: Okay. I was just going to go ding, ding, ding and go to your..neutral corners. I just wanted to ask a question of Mr-. Kress. Does not the law state, the specific wording is that the set-aside should be used for increased housing stock and improving of the existing housing stock? That's what I read in the amendment to the redevelopment law. It says both, right? KRESS: In general terms, it's both. BRUESCH: Okay. Now, and just as it cannot be used entirely for increasing stock, you know it can't be used exclusively for building, it cannot be used exclusively for improving stock, either because the spirit of the law, the idea behind the law, is to really increase the stock of low-cost housing. Correct? KRESS: Correct. I think in any given budgetary period you might prioritize one program over the other. Certainly over the past years the City has had handyman programs targeted to the improvement of existing stock. BRUESCH: Hence I asked that very question up in Sacramento to the assembled assembly people there and I said would the set-aside provision be...would it be okay for us to meet that requirement by only improving, you know like handyman and that type of thing, adding a room like that, and to a member they all said no, that won't fly. That just will not fly. The purpose of the set-aside is to increase the stock of low-cost housing. It's not just to improve existing stock. So, you know whoever we put in there, whether it be the trailer people or whatever, the whole purpose of that housing set-aside, if you're going to have a redevelopment project, and it's been in the redevelopment law since the early 1950s, the whole purpose of that set-aside is to increase the stock of low-cost housing and you're not doing that by improving existing stock. You're not increasing housing stock. And not only that, I mean we spend, give me a figure Mr. Tripepi on our handyman program and deferred loans... about $600,000? TRIPEPI: Total. BRUESCH: About $600,000 a year doing that very thing to homes that need that type of repair. The housing set-aside is not meant to CC 7-9-91 Page #10 BRUESCH CONTINUES: supplant that CDBG program, it's supposed to be adding to the services that we're already giving to our senior citizens. So, I strongly am in support of increasing that stock. In the first flush we're doing it for a specific group of people which would be the displaced persons when we change a trailer court into a commercial establishment but maybe a third of those people in those trailer parks are going to need it. We're looking at other people like what Gary mentioned the person who can't pay the rent in an apartment. Perhaps somebody that can't keep up with payments on their house or something like that but we have control of that. If we lose this 20% to the County they're going to come in and use that money to establish housing elsewhere and we lose control of that and we don't service our people and I for one don't want to lose control of that monetary source so that we can have a program that services the needs of our people. IMPERIAL: Thank you, Mr. Bruesch. Mr. Tripepi wanted to say a word. TRIPEPI: I hope the comments don't spark another round of debate. They aren't meant to...the comments are not going to be meant to try and convince anyone to vote differently but I want to respond to Mr. Taylor because I think we've talked about this before. And maybe just to ease his mind a little bit. In order to promote, as Mr. Bruesch is talking about promoting this low-income housing ...by the way for those of you in the audience, that state-wide this set-aside fund is now up to over $425 million. The governor sees it as a way to balance the state budget problems. That's what it's up to. We generate in Rosemead, about $600,000 a year in these set-aside funds. Our intent is not just to build these units and then that is the extent of our effort. Our plan as Mr. Taylor had indicated partially in his comments, was to fix those rents at something comparable, as the Council stated, to the mobile home park rents. If that's $200 a month, so be it. Where the $600 rents came in was when you do your actual market survey to determine what the market rents in the area are, to determine what you are subsidizing those rents, by how much. In our case, if they're renting at $200 and the market rents are $600, you're looking at a $400 a month rent subsidy. Well, that rent subsidy is qualified to come out of this 20% set-aside. That's what we're attempting to use this $600,000 for, a portion of it for. If the Agency wants to also use a portion of that money to go in and fix up some other houses for persons and then tell them that we'll pay to repair these and/or to fix these up and make them habitable or meet code and in exchange for that you will rent them at a lower rate and we will subsidize that rent to a qualified person. It's no more than taking those kinds of broad programs and putting them on the local level. But in order to insure that local control, the very first step that we need to do is to put it on the ballot to see if the citizens and the residents of Rosemead want this Council and/or Agency to in fact get involved in basically building senior housing or providing for or constructing for senior housing project. IMPERIAL: Thank you. Mr. Tripepi, do you want your minutes verbatim? TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. The intent was the whole conversation will be verbatim. IMPERIAL: Oh. That's your request? All right... ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: Mr. Mayor. Just to recap what I understand has happened. You have voted four to one to amend the draft of Resolution No. 91-31 to include the version of the ballot question that was passed out this evening. That's on there. Now, a second motion to deal with the second question is coming up. IMPERIAL: Yes. Thank you. All right, we've got the second part of this motion and that's a graffiti prevention tax. What's your... TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I move that we do not put it on the ballot. CC 7-9-91 Page #11 McDONALD: I second it. IMPERIAL: It's been readily moved and seconded. Any questions? Would you vote please. Yes: Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: Bruesch Absent: None Abstain: None BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. I'd like the record to show, that my "NO" vote is that I do think the City has to make a direct step toward solving the graffiti problem and again, this is not the answer but it is a step in the right direction. IMPERIAL: I would like the record to show my "YES" vote on this is because I don't want all the citizens of Rosemead to pay for a few people that are creating the problem. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to ask staff to look into the feasibility of an ordinance that would put the cans under lock and key like Dennis mentioned where it would be as easy for them to steal because I went into Thrifty and I couldn't even buy lipstick without asking the guy to open the cabinet for me so I don't think this is out of the question and this might be a way that we could address the problem in a small way. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE The following amended resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1991, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING LOW RENT HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS MOTION BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Resolution No. 91-31 be adopted as amended. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor asked.that the record show that this item could have been on the ballot four months later on the City ballot and not expend this $34,000 for one question. Mayor Imperial asked that the record show that it could have been on in the last April election and wasn't and thought enough time had been wasted. C. RESOLUTION NO. 91-32 - REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 1991, WITH THE SCHOOL ELECTION The following resolution, amended as No. 91-31, was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-32 CC 7-9-91 Page #12 0 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 1991, WITH THE SCHOOL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Resolution No. 91-32 be adopted as amended. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor asked that the record show that this item could have been on the ballot four months later, on the City ballot and not expend this $34,000 for one question. D. RESOLUTION NO. 91-33 - AUTHORIZING CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING TWO CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS The following amended resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A, WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Resolution No. 91-33 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor asked that the record show that this item could have been on the ballot four months later, on the City ballot and not expend this $34,000 for one question. E. RESOLUTION NO. 91-34 - PROVIDING FOR REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Resolution No. 91-34 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None CC 7-9-91 Page #13 The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor asked that the record show that this item could have been on the ballot four months later, on the City ballot and not expend this $34,000 for one question. Mayor Pro Tem Clark noted that it was actually five months until the next City election. F. RESOLUTION NO. 91-35 - INCREASING THE REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF PERSONS CAUSING GRAFFITI IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AUTHORIZING A REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE IDENTITY, APPREHENSION AND CONVICTION OF ANY PERSON CAUSING GRAFFITI IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD that Resolution No. 91-35 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. G. RESOLUTION NO. 91-36 - URGING PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION ESTABLISHING AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY WITH AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CLEANUP OF SERIOUS TOXIC GROUM POLLUTION IN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD URGING PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION ESTABLISHING AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY WITH AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CLEANUP OF SERIOUS TOXIC GROUND POLLUTION IN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY Councilman Bruesch expressed disappointment that Assemblywoman Tanner's bill had not passed committee, adding that Ms. Tanner had been in the forefront of this fight for years. Councilman Taylor asked for a current copy of the Torres bill. Mayor Pro Tem Clark expressed embarrassment that the Council had not supported Ms. Tanner's bill more strongly. Councilman McDonald noted that the cities had supported the Tanner bill but that it had been killed by the watermaster and the water districts. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that Resolution No. 91-36 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: Taylor The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 7-9-91 Page #14 0 Staff was directed to send a copy of these minutes to Assemblywoman Tanner. H. RESOLUTION NO. 91-37 - ADOPTING THE 1991 EDITION OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING THE 1991 EDITION OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that Resolution No. 91-37 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. I. RESOLUTION NO. 91-38 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS - FY 1991-92 The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $205,594.06 NUMBERED 37511, 37512, 37534 AND 33850-33871 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that Resolution No. 91-38 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - (CC-A, CC-C, CC-E, and CC-G REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-B EXTENSION OF SENIOR CITIZEN LUNCH PROGRAM AT ZAPOPAN CENTER CC-D ACCEPTANCE OF A PUBLIC SEWER IN MARSHALL STREET, PARCEL MAP NO. 17481 CC-F REQUEST FOR ANNUAL COST-0F-LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. CC-H PARKING SCHOOL ON MARSHALL STREET, EAST OF SAVANNAH CC-I AWARD OF BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF A 1991 FORD TAURUS CC-J AWARD OF BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF A 1991 BUICK PARK AVENUE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None CC 7-9-91 Page #15 • 0 The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-A RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR DEFERRED LOAN PROGRAM FOR MR. AND MRS. PADILLA AT 3340 N. EVELYN AVENUE Councilman Taylor asked for clarification of the contract amount, noting a difference between the listing of the bids and the recommendation. Mark Fullerton, Community Development Coordinator, stated that that was a clerical error. Councilman Bruesch was concerned that the low bid was so much below the other bidders. Mr. Fullerton assured the Council that the credentials had been investigated. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that the Council receive and file all bids; accept and award the bid to the low bidder, Housing Preservation Rehabilitation, for a contract amount of $15,755; authorize staff to enter into the contract with the owners and contractor; and reject all other bids. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: Taylor Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Bruesch requested that staff monitor closely and to the satisfaction of the owner. Councilman Taylor stated that his objection was to the method of payment and that he was not against the owner of the home. CC-C PURCHASE OF AUTOMATED BALLOT COUNTER Councilman Bruesch was concerned that there would be additional costs in addition to the purchase of the counter and was reassured that any increase in costs should be minimal. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that the Council approve the purchase of a 600 cpm Micro Ballot Counter for use in future City elections. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-E INTERSECTION OF MISSION DRIVE AND NEWBY AVENUE Mayor Imperial disagreed with the Traffic Commission report and reiterated the opinion that this is a dangerous corner for those making a right-hand turn from eastbound Mission Drive onto Newby Avenue. This item was deferred for more information. CC-G PARKING ALONG MARSHALL STREET ADJACENT TO JANSON SCHOOL Councilman Bruesch stated that he had received complaints from the school because of the traffic problem with children crossing the street before and after school. Mr. Bruesch asked for increased enforcement at problem areas. CC 7-9-91 Page #16 . .0 • MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Council authorize extension of the red curb/bus stop zone east for 90 feet and extend the loading/unloading zone to join it. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR & ACTION A. JOINT DINNER MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS There being no objection, September 17, 1991, was tentatively scheduled for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. IMPROVED WITH RESIDENTS There being no objection, staff was directed to begin posting all Traffic Commission, Planning Commission and City Council agendas at locations in addition to City Hall and the Rosemead Library, as listed in RMC Sec. 2801. B. COUNCILMAN BRUESCH 1. Again asked for the water conservation policy of the City's landscape contractor. VIII.CLOSED SESSION A. PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a), A OF THE TRANSPORTATION LEASING LITIGATION The Council adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to meet in a Closed Session to receive a report from counsel. No action was taken on that report and the meeting was reconvened at 11:05 p.m. There being no further action to be taken at this time', the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for July 23, 1991, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: City Clerk CC 7-9-91 Page #17